Talk:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Date issues Since this site places Space Seed in the Year 2267 would that place ST2 in 2282 (15 years later) -- TOSrules 05:44, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST) :Both are correct as Khan states that he was on Ceti Alpha V for 15 years and the movie is set in 2285 and Kirk agreed with Khan. This is a continuity error, but one easy to fix. We can just suppose that Khan referred to local years on Ceti Alpha V and Kirk agreed with Khan because after 18 years, Kirk did not remember that it was 18 years ago instead of 15 years ago. It is just a little retcon. It is not like an whole season is a dreamsequence. ;) Ŭalabio 21:11, 2004 Nov 21 (CET) Or we could just assume everyone is rounding off, as people often do in everyday speech. --Steve 21:16, 21 Nov 2004 (CET) :The film cannot be set in 2282 - the label on the bottle of Romulan ale which Bones gives Kirk as a birthday gift reads 2283! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 06:02, 20 Mar 2005 (EST) *the romulans used time warp, obviously (-; that's why romulan ale is illegal, or Bones is brewing some bathtub gin, er, romulan ale and got the label wrong * The Romulan Ale is Romulan, so on a Romulan Calendar it is after 2283, heck it could be 2383 on the romulan Calendar. And before you point out anything like the date they left, remember their plant could have a shorter orbit. --TOSrules 19:57, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::I'm glad to see I'm not the only one bothered by Star Trek's time inconsistencies. The one involving "The Wrath of Khan" particularly annoyed the hell out of me. ::First of all, why would ROMULAN Ale have an Earth date on it? Secondly, is two years that long a time to ferment? (I'm really asking; I have no clue) ::Lastly, it is rare enough to find one person who rounds down from 18 years (2285-2267) to get 15, but two or more doing that is absurd. If Star Trek II does take place in 2285, then the episode "Space Seed" must have taken place around 2270. I don't believe it did. Khan was a romantic who used license when referring to the number of centuries it had been since he ruled on Earth, but if he wanted to round the number 18, he would have said 20 years. And Kirk would have said 20 years as well. But Kirk also said fifteen. Thus I can only conclude that A.) ST II:TWOK taked place in 2282 and B.) I have way too much time on my hands. :::Well, it could have very well taken place in 2282, although this seems unlikely since Kirk was retired in 2284. He was presumably retired in 2282, as well, when he met Antonia in Idaho, but he also could have been on shore leave. Who knows? --From Andoria with Love 23:18, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC) Chamber where Spock was launched from? How is the chamber called, where Spock's 'funeral' took place? * Spock's funeral took place in the Enterprise's starboard side torpedo launcher (remember, the port side launcher was destroyed by the Reliant). --ApolloBoy 05:04, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC) Getting back to the year in which Star Trek II was supposed to have taken place, I had not really thought about the scene in Star Trek: Generations in which Kirk talks about Antonia and returning to Starfleet. Two things come to mind however. First of all, I recently read in one of Ronald D. Moore's old blogs that he had intended Kirk's time in the Nexus to have referred to the period either before or after the events in Star Trek: The Motion Picture and thus the whole time period is a bit screwed up. Second, even before I knew Moore's thoughts on this, I never bought the piece about Antonia and the other events in the Nexus, as the Nexus didn't give people reality; Picard didn't actually have a wife and family and his nephew couldn't have visited his house for Christmas. And Kirk never actually retired from Starfleet; he was promoted. Therefore I stick to my original belief that the movie, despite conventional wisdom, took place in 2282. Incidently, I listened to Nick Meyer's commentary on the Star Trek II special edition DVD today. And his explanations of certain ideas only reaffirmed my opinion. He said that Kirk was going to be specifically aged at 49 years old (Shatner objected). Whether Meyer realized that most fans consider Kirk to have been born in 2233 is questionable. But this would definitively place the movie's events in 2282. Incidently, I still have too much time on my hands. We Trek fans are, on average, the most anal retentive of all fans in the world to contemplate, much less debate when a fictional event took place. From Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements Copied from Wikipedia --Memory 19:04, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) :It should be noted that it's not the entire article, only part of the summary that has been deemed a copyright infringement. I think simply removing that portion of the text would be enough; that's usually what happens, anyway - someone pastes a copyrighted summary, it is simply reverted. I'm not sure if there's a need to place it here. Could be wrong, though. --From Andoria with Love 22:21, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::The problem is the old version stored in the database. Just removing it doesn't separates it from the history, so the versions must be deleted. If we just revert, we don't need this page here, if there is something like Lumerian we just remove it and write a short stub. But that won't erase the copyvio (to hit "Save page" means relicensing it without permission, so we have to remove all traces of this, just for the case that someone copies the copyvio version from here later). --Memory 17:23, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::: Well if no one touches this yet in the next 12 hours or so the summary will have to be deleted and can be rewritten from scratch. --Alan del Beccio ::::Only the reverted part please ;-) --Memory 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) :::::Perhaps you should do it, since I'm not seeing what you are getting at outside of explaining why we don't just revert it to the point prior to the addition of the copyvio template. --Alan del Beccio 10:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::I'm not an admin and can't delete the three copyvios in the history (1, 2 and 3). --Memory 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) :::::::It's not that easy. Even if I delete those specific entries, the same text is going to remain in the article. The text needs to be removed from the article or rewritten. Anyone can do that. --Alan del Beccio 21:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Uh? Only the three versions I listed contain the cv stuff. This has been removed with my revert. Deletion of them is now the next step. --Memory 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::::: What is the point deleting contributions in the middle of a contribution list when the information is no longer in the article? --Alan del Beccio 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::Read above: they are still copyvios as long as they are stored anywhere here under our license. --Memory 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Moved, remains unresolved, please do not copy the mentioned versions while citing MA as their source. Use the Wikipedia original instead. --Memory 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC) "Memorable Quotes" I removed this section, since all the "memorable quotes" that are truly memorable have been integrated in either the Summary or Analysis section, or are taglines of thumbnails. Ottens 12:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) :It's still nice to see some memorable quotes in their own section. There are a number of episodes that have the quotes buried in the text, but sometimes if you want a quick tagline, it's nice to check out the "MQ" section. As such, I'd suggest putting it back in, even if it repeats some of the lines. -- Sulfur 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC) The thing is, the majority of the quotes are repeated under "Analysis", which would come right after "Memorable Quotes". Most of the others are in the thumbs--there are only a few that are "burried" in the text. So most shouldn't be hard to find. I just think that it's not a good idea to lengthed the page ever further, especially when it means repeating the same lines. Ottens 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) "Analysis" I think between Summary and Background is the appropriate location, since it discusses the themes of the film; it's not a behind-the-scenes thing. Ottens 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) "Summary" As the name indicates, this is supposed to be a summary of the film's story, not a scene-by-scene breakdown, which is pretty much how it stands now. I would like to revert the edits made to the Summary section by Capt Christopher Donovan. Please let me know if there are any objections. Ottens 09:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC) :You'll have to revert much farther than that, I'm afraid. All I did was clean up grammar/syntax, etc, and move a couple of sentences. The basic structure of the article is 95%+ the same as I found it in...I had contemplated doing a total re-write, but didn't have the time then (and really don't now). :I don't have anyobjections if someone else wants to take a whack at it (not that my permission is needed in the first place). I would note that I've read other ep/movie summaries here that ARE as detailed as this one. Either way, I'd say leave it as is unless/until someone CAN do a "ground up" revision...Capt Christopher Donovan 09:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Well I'll at least do some cleaning up then, there are some sentences bolded for some reason, and the images don't line up. Ottens 10:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC) DYK suggestion *that in Star Trek:II you can see a "Smoking Prohibited" sign in the simulation room around the time that the distress call is received from the Neutral Zone Check if that needs to be added here as a background info... -- Cid Highwind 23:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Genesis? I love this line from the image caption: To Meyer's mind, Khan was related to Satan, who fell from grace with God. Of course, thematically, this linked him with Genesis-–another of the film's Biblical allusions. but I don't think there's much to back it up. Unless someone can provide a reference? Federation 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Early names The Wikipedia article (Comments and criticisms section, paragraph 7) mentions that the original name for the movie was "The Vengeance of Khan". This page mentions nothing like that; is there any proof behind this? --206.13.95.66 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC) WikiUserPage